Mark HIP45 doc as approved

[jamiew]

See my comments in #311 re approval evidence and logic. Thank you!

Originally posted by @jamiew in #311 (comment)

There has been strong support for this proposal. The coredevs support it, the newly formed LoRaWAN committee supports it, it has 95%+ support in Discord straw polling, and there have no concerns raised either here or on the monthly community call, and it has been open for several months.

I believe this proposal has passed our standard for rough consensus, and an on-chain temperature check or vote is not required.

On behalf of the DeWi, the HIP Editors, and the wider Helium community, I am marking this proposal as approved, and request that the coredev team implement the necessary changes as soon as reasonably possible.

[leogaggl]

@jamiew,

As per the Australian Community Call from yesterday, there seems to be a real problem with the way the LoRaWAN committee in HIP-45 is composed and how decisions are made.

• The Australian frequency plan seems to have been driven by one document written by a commercial NS operator not even connected to the Helium ecosystem.
• This document has never been made available
• There was NO serious evaluation of the options. It was designed to achieve a pre-determined outcome
• It has been up to the affected community to provide this evidence (see PR-28 Australia and New Zealand Switching to AS923-1 ) - on the objective evidence this PR should have NEVER seen the light of day

We will create a working group here in Australia to research proper governance procedures for the LoRaWAN committee regarding:

1. Selection of members
2. Declaration of conflict of interest
3. Procedure of including the affected region in the decision-making process

There is a lot of Open Source or Not-for-profit organisations that have these procedures. It will not be too hard to find such a structure. Mozilla Foundation would be a good start.

Can you please confirm if there is a possibility to suggest changes to HIP-45 in regards to the way the committee is selected and the governance of this committee? Or would a new HIP have to be written to change this HIP?

Please note that this is not about the process of this HIP itself. It is to clarify how this committee is selected and how it has to conduct itself.

EDIT: 2022-03-03: add recording URL for Community Call

[lthiery]

Hi @leogaggl

There is absolutely room for a new HIP that would establish proper governance procedures for the DeWi's LoRaWAN Committee. I would emphasize that these are different than a "HIP45 amendment" since HIP45 endows the committee with frequency plan decision-making, but what you are suggesting is much higher level than this specific decision-making power. Instead, you wish to formalize and be more rigorous about the committee itself and I think it's much more appropriate as it's own HIP.

I'm happy to chat about how to "submit a HIP" and happy to work with you on developing these ideas.

--Louis

[jamiew]

+1 to what Louis said, that all sounds wonderful, and I'd recommend a new HIP for the same reasons. I would be thrilled to see more participants in governance and technical decision-making like this, especially local experts

[Australian-Hnt-collectors]

i think we should have local people , it is clear that the team whom was making decisions on this have not been involved with the Australian Market place and do not understand the work and dynamics which have gone into development of the network here in Australia. We have letters of support for the Helium network by name and working on 915 from federal members of Parliament which shows that this change of freq is not warranted or needed especially from outsiders whom have no involvement in the helium ecosystem in Australia if at all world wide

[Australian-Hnt-collectors]

http://okosvaros.lechnerkozpont.hu/en/node/1052 Also so your aware do we just ignore Perth being the first city to announce being a 915 smart city with other towns following suit such as the gold coast and alike